JUDGMENT O.N. Khandelwal, J.
1. The petitioner's father Lalla was occupying a portion of house No. 293/48 (old) Haiderganj, P.S. Bazarkhala, Lucknow. The petitioner claims that after the death of her father she continued to occupy that premises, but the same has been released in favour of the landlord vide order of the Additional City Magistrate, Lucknow dated 26.5.2000 (Annexure-9) and has also' been upheld by the revisional court on 16.11.2005 (Annexure-10). Prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid orders.
2. The landlord-opposite party No. 3 moved an application under Section 12 read with Section 16 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 in 1996 impleading one Ram Gopal. It was alleged that after the death of the original tenant Lalla and his widow Ram Dulari, his nephew Ram Gopal has been in unauthorised occupation since the two daughters of tenant had already been married.
3. After receiving the notice of the aforesaid release application, Ram Gopal filed his objection, pleading therein that after the death of Lalla, his widow Ram Dulari daughter Meera and younger brother's family (wife Ram Janki and daughter Kamla) continued to live in that house. However, he does not have any concern with the premises in question. It was reiterated that Smt. Ram Janki, Kamla and Meera are occupying the disputed premises.
4. The landlord-opposite party No. 3 filed his application, stating that the petitioner Meera along with Ram Gopal is taking forcible possession of the premises in dispute.
5. On 10.5.1999, the arguments of the landlord were heard by Additional City Magistrate as the counsel for the occupant of Ram Gopal was absent. After considering the report of the Rent Control inspector that the married daughter of deceased-tenant Lalla had gone to their sasural and Ram Gopal is occupying the house unauthorisedly found that vacancy exists and was accordingly notified. It was pasted on the notice board of the Court, copy of which was also sent to Ram Gopal and Smt. Meera Devi.
6. Ram Gopal moved an application for recalling the ex parte order dated 10.5.1999. Smt. Meera Devi also filed her objection that she has been residing with her father and mother before and after her marriage she seldom goes to her sasural, the tenancy rights have devolved on her, accommodation in question is not vacant, tenancy has been declared on the basis of false report submitted by Rent Control inspector and, therefore, the ex parte order should be recalled.
7. Through a separate application, the petitioner made request to take photo copy of the electoral roll and photo copy of the identity card on record. The Additional City Magistrate in his impugned order dated 26.5.2000 has observed that : "The petitioner did not come within the definition of word family as contained in Section 3(g) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 ; photo copies of the documents filed by the petitioner are not admissible ; they are not supported by any affidavit, while the landlord has filed documents supported by an affidavit and the same has not been controverted by the petitioner. In view of this finding, the vacant premises was released in favour of the landlord. That order has been confirmed by the revisional court."
8. Sri Shivji Shukla, advocate appeared on behalf of the landlord-opposite party No. 3. With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally.
9. The petitioner's counsel has laid much stress on the replication filed by the landlord (Annexure-3) and the endorsement made in favour of Smt. Meera Devi on the vacancy notification dated 10.5.1999. It was argued that Smt. Meera Devi was occupying the premises even on the date of inspection of the building by the Rent Control inspector, therefore, without impleading her and without giving notice to her, the order regarding notification of vacancy is illegal and against the provisions contained in Rule 8 of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972.
10. Rule 8 provides that the District Magistrate shall, before making any order of allotment or release in respect of any building which is alleged to be vacant under Section 12 or to be otherwise vacant or to be likely to fall vacant, get the same inspected by a Gazetted Officer.
11. But the order dated 10.5.1999 (Annexure-4 and Annexure-9) indicates that according to the inspection report of the Rent Control inspector, widow of the deceased tenant-Lalla had already died on 20.10.1996 leaving behind two married daughters, who had gone to their sasural. The house was found locked at the time of his inspection. Statement of Manoj Kumar Vishwakarma was also obtained.
12. No doubt, the landlord in his replication dated 2.7.1998 (Annexure-3) has mentioned that Ram Gopal and Smt. Meera Devi, daughter of Lalla are illegally and forcibly occupying the house but at the same time he has also mentioned in para 10 of the replication that Ram Gopal wants to maintain his illegal occupation by putting forward, the daughter of deceased-tenant Lalla. In his replication he has nowhere admitted that she was occupying or living in the premises at the time of inspection made by Rent Control inspector.
13. Rule 8(2) simply requires that the inspection of the building so far as possible shall be made in presence of the landlord-tenant or any other occupant. It further requires that the conclusion of the inspection report shall be pasted on the notice board of the office of the District Magistrate for information of the general public. In compliance of this provisions, copy of the notification of vacancy dated 10.5.1999 was pasted on the notice board of the Court for information of the general public. This notification gives the details of the house, name of the landlord and his address as well as reference of the report of the Rent Control inspector.
14. Copy of this notification was endorsed to alleged occupant Ram Gopal and also to Smt. Meera Devi, D/o. Lalla, W/o. Sri. Hari Bhajan, R/o. 293/48, Purana Haiderganj, P.S. Bazarkhala, Lucknow/present address house No. T-1, Chowk, Shahabad, P.S. Hardoi on the basis of this endorsement and the averments made in the replication, this argument cannot be accepted that the petitioner Meera Devi was living in the disputed premises at the time of death of tenant Lalla and thereafter. The address mentioned in this notice simply suggests that she had earlier been living in the disputed premises, but is presently residing in Shahabad, district Hardoi.
15. For the sake of arguments even if it is accepted that she was living in the premises in dispute she was given an opportunity to file her objection against the order declaring the premises to be vacant. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to her.
16. The requirements of Section 16 of the Act No. XIII of 1972 and Rule 8 is that the person in actual occupation of the building, may be given an opportunity to show to the authorities concerned that the provisions of Section 12(4) are not attracted in case where the release of the same is being sought by the landlord. In the present case in compliance of Rule 8(2), the notification of vacancy was pasted for the information of the general public. The petitioner had even been separately informed whereupon she filed objection and the order of allotment has not been passed only after disposal of the objections and submissions made by the petitioner and the landlord, after considering (legal and admissible) evidence adduced by the parties.
17. The learned Additional City Magistrate has referred the affidavit of the landlord dated 27.5.1999, according to which both the married daughters of the deceased tenant were living in their sasural ; name of Smt. Meera Devi has been included in the ration card of her husband in sasural where she has been voter till 1995. Smt. Meera Devi though filed her objection but did not file her affidavit in support of her objection nor any relevant evidence. Her claim that she has been deserted by her husband is neither relevant nor believed by the learned Additional City Magistrate on the ground that she has got three children out of the said wedlock. She tried to place photo copies of the voter-list and ration-card on record, which was rightly rejected as those documents were inadmissible in evidence.
18. The finding given by the learned Additional City Magistrate with regard to the vacancy of the premises in-question is a finding of fact based on relevant and reliable material on record. It does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. There is no error in the order passed by the revlsional court too.
19. This writ petition is devoid of any merit and is, therefore, dismissed.